My usual response will follow later, but I did just want to drop this in for now, following a comment she made earlier today
You have come up with some horseshit over the years, but this really is a corker. Everything you have said is wrong.
Several categories of document were excluded from the published file. These included lists of offenders, police intelligence and any document which could be adjudged to reveal police operational details. Any document provided to the UK police or via Crimestoppers was also excluded. That is why those, and other, statements are missing. It is absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the PJ reading the files and retaining one because of duplication of information, and I cannot understand how you dreamed up that idea.
I am going to highlight in yellow the specific lies in that post, as it really deserves it.
Why have I picked out this post? Because Textusa brags about her research, a claim which has always been laughable, but this is a good illustration, especially as the answer to the question posed is, and has always been, available in the files